There isn't less of it, there's just less of it placed in front of the player.
And you can't separate the story from how it's presented; telling 10 hours worth of story over the course of 40 hours is not a good way to do it. That causes pacing problems, and a muddy progression to the plot, that makes it more unsatisfying that it would have otherwise been.
I'd argue there's less of it, especially relative to overall length. You have a couple of cutscenes in the beginning and near the end that are quite lengthy but most of the story is relegated to optional cassette tapes.
And of course, relative story time to gameplay matters. MGS4 was like 4-5 hours of cutscenes and 3-4 hours of gameplay. The relative ratio difference for something like MGSV is far greater.
Even an average story is OK. 90% of great games doesnt have good story but amazing gameplay. eg; LoL, CS, Mario, Street fighter, bayonetta, Zelda(simple), Resident evil, MGS, Minecraft, WoW etc.
That video very succintly shows why the twist doesn't work while it worked on MGS2. On MGS2, the entire game was designed around it and it all leads up to it. It's a natural part of the plot. In V it's pretty much a throwaway, discombobulated nothing. They didn't even bother to remove the tutorial prompts from Mission 46.
I thought V's plot was compelling. Every time a cutscene came up and more exposition was put forward, I was watching/listening without being bored or wanting the scenes to end. I heard every single tape as well, wanting to know more about the plot, which delivered in my opinion. Surely, it did not deliver like the first 4 games did, but I enjoyed it greatly.
It's one thing to enjoy something for what it is and another to disregard all of its failings and even moreso prop it as a paragon of quality for the entire medium, as Gamespot did.
That's like a really small part of a much larger issue. I feel like every time you show up in one of these threads it's to be incredibly reductionist about people's critical attitudes towards it. That's kind of a shitty thing to do. We get it that you don't share people's issues with the game, but you don't have to call them petty.
It was bad argument, easily dismissed. That you aren't defending the point and instead are attacking me personally for my alleged "reductionism" speaks volumes.
There's a difference in nitpicking and applying critical thinking. For example, the hand-wringing over the absence of mission #51 is a nitpick used to bolster the claim of "incompleteness". Whereas applying critical thinking is looking at the evidence (the video showing the 30% done cut-scenes), and concluding that it actually wouldn't have added anything significant to the narrative.
I don't care so much about the absence of Episode 51 as much as I care about what it implies; that MGSV isn't as intended, even to the point where something that was mo-capped and voice acted what cut for time rather than authorial intent.
Not being able to tie up that sub-plot differently makes me extrapolate the reasons for the other elements of Chapter 2 that I found disappointing, such as if how it was delivered was more to do with being rushed than just being designed badly, which is a shame.
Totally agree with the points in this review. It's an awesome game that I'm still playing 100+ hours in, but it's still not worthy of a perfect score. Even if 51 was finished & in game, there'd still be a LOT left that felt unfinished.
It was bad argument, easily dismissed. That you aren't defending the point and instead are attacking me personally for my alleged "reductionism" speaks volumes.
There's a difference in nitpicking and applying critical thinking. For example, the hand-wringing over the absence of mission #51 is a nitpick used to bolster the claim of "incompleteness". Whereas applying critical thinking is looking at the evidence (the video showing the 30% done cut-scenes), and concluding that it actually wouldn't have added anything significant to the narrative.
What is this post. Part of a game missing that was meant to wrap up a loose plot thread doesn't actually mean it's incomplete because they hadn't finished making the cutscenes yet? What?
Excellent video as usual from SBH. I have 3 points to make.
1. Part of me wants to believe that "the phantom pain" the ending of the game leaves the player with is intentional. I want to believe that Kojima is a visionary willing to purposefully make an unsatisfying ending to create a real emotion from the player. Nevertheless, it is still an unsatisfying ending
2. People need to stop thinking of review scores as "an accurate measurement of a game's quality" and instead think of them as "the level of recommendation" the reviewer is giving, ie 10/10 isn't a "perfect game", it's a "game everyone should try". In that sense MGSV is for certain a 10/10 game.
3. I very much agree with the side ops portion of the game being very underwhelming and repetitive. Those saying this is an open world game without the filler are very much wrong.
It was bad argument, easily dismissed. That you aren't defending the point and instead are attacking me personally for my alleged "reductionism" speaks volumes.
There's a difference in nitpicking and applying critical thinking. For example, the hand-wringing over the absence of mission #51 is a nitpick used to bolster the claim of "incompleteness". Whereas applying critical thinking is looking at the evidence (the video showing the 30% done cut-scenes), and concluding that it actually wouldn't have added anything significant to the narrative.
As some one who has S ranked all 50 missions, finished all 157 side ops, and spend a good bit of time on FOBs.
I can safely say that this video is 100% on point.
If the game wasn't so goddamn fun to actually play it would be in some serious deep shit.
The twist in mission 46 needs SO MUCH MORE context and it needs to actually mean more for me to actually like it.
The side ops are a fucking disaster. That's all there is to it, I don't even feel like I need to elaborate more on why they're a disaster because it should be totally apparent especially if you've played PW.
Honestly if you played Ground Zeroes you get almost as much of the experience as you would if you played TPP.
I don't think there's a problem with the scores the game got, they're pretty much on par with others "long anticipated very hyped games from beloved franchise". My issue is that very very few talked about Chapter 2's problems and cut content, which are pretty much objectively there. It baffles me that almost none considered bringing it up.
It's not the first time that the players have to discover for themselves obvious flaws in games that the reviewers suspiciously failed to mention.
It's also interesting how Bunnyhop expresses his disappointment in relation to marketing materials and things Kojima promised on the Twitter, while the Giant Bomb guys insisted on disregarding all that and evaluating the finished product on it's own.
Despite agreeing with much of what he says, you raise an important point, and it's something which serves to seperate the fan from the professional reviewer. When it comes down to it, the only thing that truly matters is what's in the game. That's what your reviewing, not some cut mission 51 content. You're reviewing the game, Nothing else outside of that matters. Everything else is just white noise. A distraction to the goal of being able to distil the essence of the game itself and communicate that to their audience. So, when you Kojima on a pedestal and give stock to some of the nonsense he rolls around in promoting the game, such as his deliberately provocative moments about having to leave the industry or trying some dangerous taboo etc. that stuff can be disregarded. Professional reviewers would be doing themselves a disservice if they reviewed the game from the perspective that the media hype train, Kojima's tweets and the various trailers mattered and fed into their review. That's not their job.
What I don't get is why that thread needed to be there.
They could have just cut the scene and the crappy missions involving the children. Cut out the bit where Psycho Mantis hands Eli the flask and then left a bit of text at the end explaining where Eli goes.
One small question regarding the horn changing size that he brings up. Does that still exist in the game? I had no idea that the horn could change size and thought the "long" horn flash forwards was just non-literal visual symbolism. This review is the first time I've heard it mentioned.
2. People need to stop thinking of review scores as "an accurate measurement of a game's quality" and instead think of them as "the level of recommendation" the reviewer is giving, ie 10/10 isn't a "perfect game", it's a "game everyone should try". In that sense MGSV is for certain a 10/10 game.
That's an interesting way to use a 10/10. I've never heard that particular line of thinking before. It's not something I'm against, but it's not how I think of it. I don't use 10/10 as a "perfect" mark, but to label something as a "masterpiece." In that regard, I'm a bit hesitant to give MGSV that label.
Despite agreeing with much of what he says, you raise an important point, and it's something which serves to seperate the fan from the professional reviewer. When it comes down to it, the only thing that truly matters is what's in the game. That's what your reviewing, not some cut mission 51 content. You're reviewing the game, Nothing else outside of that matters. Everything else is just white noise. A distraction to the goal of being able to distil the essence of the game itself and communicate that to their audience. So, when you Kojima on a pedestal and give stock to some of the nonsense he rolls around in promoting the game, such as his deliberately provocative moments about having to leave the industry or trying some dangerous taboo etc. that stuff can be disregarded. Professional reviewers would be doing themselves a disservice if they reviewed the game from the perspective that the media hype train, Kojima's tweets and the various trailers mattered and fed into their review. That's not their job.
Even ignoring the promotional materials, Kojima's hype on Twitter, and the cut pieces of content like Episode 51, the game still falls flat in many ways. The only thing that those extra things do is exacerbate the issues already obviously present.
Mantis and Eli fly away as before, Sahalanthropus is recaptured but not destroyed. It doesn't inform us of any change in either Venom or any other characters mindset.
Yes it provides closure on what happens to the final parasite vial, but runs smack into the nasty business of having a bunch of infected child soldiers dead either at the hands of the attacking XOF soldiers or via DD's napalm sanitization of the isle.
Daring punch-line, or schlocky cheap-shot theatrics? Killing children is a taboo that the rest of the game avoids, but in this instance its basically unavoidable.
Snake dying at the end of MGS4 was an easier "sell", and Kojima got talked out of that.
I don't think he was attacking them, or their opinion, but rather the obviously compromised nature of the reviews, and how suspect is it what some reviewers decided to neglect. We've had confirmation that some critics who've published their reviews hadn't even seen the actual end of the game, or had used the chicken hat, thus negating almost any challenge.
The whole bootcamp situation is ridiculous, I mean, forty hours to complete something like the phantom pain, and then give a reasonable review is just a joke. I actually sympathize with many of the critics too, as while it's easy to say they don't have integrity going in to something like that, they don't have a choice. Not everyone can be in the same position as Giant Bomb.
I know it's all opinion too, but the quote about there being no filler content is ridiculous. I mean, the side ops are fun, and there's the odd occasional important one, but I dare anyone to keep a straight face while convincing me that a majority of them aren't just re factored versions of the same thing over and over again.
i totally agree with this review! every point he says is exactly how i felt. i wanted to see snake descent to madness instead they were good guys! fultoning people does not make them bad, i wanted child soldiers, i wanted some taboo stuff, men become demon, instead they were angels protecting kids, i wanted the missing link. i wanted to see big boss descent to the dark side. i wanted more of the story. instead the game just made me feel empty as a big MGS fan. gameplay wise its so great had so much fun
Are people still defending the giant hanging plot thread at the end of the game?
The whole "bunch of kids stole a giant mechanized death machine, a biological weapon capable of wiping out the English speaking population of the world and kidnapped a chopper pilot". When the kids ran away the first time Snake personally went out to get them all back but when the ran way with the two most powerful weapons in the world no one lifts a finger. That is a HUGE plot point that needs to be addressed.
Are people still defending the giant hanging plot thread at the end of the game?
The whole "bunch of kids stole a giant mechanized death machine, a biological weapon capable of wiping out the English speaking population of the world and kidnapped a chopper pilot". When the kids ran away the first time Snake personally went out to get them all back but when the ran way with the two most powerful weapons in the world no one lifts a finger. That is a HUGE plot point that needs to be addressed.
Are people still defending the giant hanging plot thread at the end of the game?
The whole "bunch of kids stole a giant mechanized death machine, a biological weapon capable of wiping out the English speaking population of the world and kidnapped a chopper pilot". When the kids ran away the first time Snake personally went out to get them all back but when the ran way with the two most powerful weapons in the world no one lifts a finger. That is a HUGE plot point that needs to be addressed.
What if Konami takes it down, or hell never released it at all? Justifying a game's cut ending with "Just watch an incomplete version on youtube" isn't a good explanation, it's an excuse.
So you don't know how i ends yet feel that you have an understanding of why people are disappointed with the ending? Or that it's unreasonable to expect a good ending in the first place?
That's exactly my point.
I don't know how it ends. Regardless the game already provided me with more hours of fun than any other game this gen, so while I can understand a bad finale leaving a sour taste in your mouth (and i do know that part of the fun does come from the buildup and subsequent expectations of climax and resolution) that should not change your perception of the whole experience.
It's a well known fact the ending is what sticks with people and can often make or break a story, I just think it's not entirely fair to call the game "omg best thing ever" after 30hours and "huge disappointment" after 80 (I've heard people sounding exactly like this). Hype can be deceiving, and so can disappointment.
Encouraging
No I haven't, but that's exactly what I'm saying.
I can understand hating the ending and being so pissed at the game for not fulfilling your expectations, especially when you know the series won't get another chance.
But, as bad as it could ever be, it shouldn't cancel the hours of fun you had with the game. That's why I think those who were just burned by the finale might not necessarily be the most objective.
What if Konami takes it down, or hell never released it at all? Justifying a game's cut ending with "Just watch an incomplete version on youtube" isn't a good explanation, it's an excuse.
At this point it's hard to say if we will ever see another Major Metal Gear release. People can consider that canon if they want, even if it is unfinished.
Honestly, I don't care either way. We know in the future that Liquid doesn't have it, so we can simply assume that he lost it or mission 51 played out off camera. I think fans getting up in arms about that stuff is pretty weak. I think the other portions of the story are far more important to talk about.
That's exactly my point.
I don't know how it ends. Regardless the game already provided me with more hours of fun than any other game this gen, so while I can understand a bad finale leaving a sour taste in your mouth (and i do know that part of the fun does come from the buildup and subsequent expectations of climax and resolution) that should not change your perception of the whole experience.
It's a well known fact the ending is what sticks with people and can often make or break a story, I just think it's not entirely fair to call the game "omg best thing ever" after 30hours and "huge disappointment" after 80 (I've heard people sounding exactly like this). Hype can be deceiving, and so can disappointment.
I think you'll find that many of the people who fall into that category haven't changed their mind solely based on story, but based on a deeper, longer and more critical experience with the gameplay itself.
So, after I S ranked all the missions and completed all the side ops, found all the animals, and am currently standing at 92% completion
Bunnyhop brings some good points (I wasn't considering watching this after his horrid E3 video)
-The twist, even though I understand its intent doesn't feel earned. The fact you need to complete some arbitrary means to unlock mission 46 feels disjointed.
-Side ops started out well, but around the final few I was fucking tired of destroying the armored vehicle/tank ESPECIALLY when the later ones all have a fucking helicopter patrolling the area.
- I understand the missions all have a similar formula of go to point A then B, or to extract something, but the way you approach each thing is completely up to you
-Yeah, the skulls fights are BS, especially on the extreme missions
-I completely overlooked the fact that Ocelot doesn't do any of his odd ball traits hes done in all previous games, because he was being voiced by Troy Baker
In the end, yeah bunnyhop puts it aptly, a lot of us are feeling phantom pain by how this games story was handled. I don't think adding mission 51 is really going to add anything to the game, because even with it, it just ends.
The way this game was marketed, even with the hints of venoms identity sprinkled in some of them, advertised something the game wasn't. Asides from Miller, you don't really feel like you are becoming a demon, hungry for revenge. I didn't regret my words and deeds.
Farewell Sausage would have been so much better than Quiets actual backstory
I am sad about this but I probably do not want another MGS game.
I wouldn't say he's bashing them or pointing the finger - it's just more just bewilderment about how the game received multiple perfect scores despite its GLARING flaws. I feel the same way. I don't think it's a BAD game but to say that "yes, it's a perfect game" is really not accurate. There are a pretty obvious set of flaws story and gameplay - neither are perfect by any means.
Great video, but I don't agree with some points. First of all, main missions objectives, he said in the video that most objectives revolves around getting from point A to B or something like that, in MGS V or similar games, it's how to get from point A to B, the game give the player many ways to do that and MGS V is a stealth game so getting from point A to B without being detected or killing a target is what stealth games or MGS V is all about. All games or open world/stealth games are about getting from point A to B so his criticism is not valid in my opinion.
Now about side ops, side ops are in the game for many reasons:
1. give the player an opportunity to gather more GMP in order to develop more weapons/gear/tools.
2. recruit better soldiers.
3. To experiment or try new strategies using buddies/new tools/ weapons/gadgets without being punished while doing so (no scoring system).
Yes, side ops can get repetitive, but they are better designed than most side quests in other games.
No he doesn't. I think even Joe himself would admit that to you.
When the majority of reviews you make start with some comedy sketch about the game, I don't think you can call them serious.
THE HORROR
the horror...
Please link to a SBH thread before this one and after his Konami investigation got pulled by Konami, or your claim doesn't hold water. Your "SBH favoritism!" argument is pretty ironic given your clear favoritism towards Joe.
At this point it's hard to say if we will ever see another Major Metal Gear release. People can consider that canon if they want, even if it is unfinished.
Honestly, I don't care either way. We know in the future that Liquid doesn't have it, so we can simply assume that he lost it or mission 51 played out off camera. I think fans getting up in arms about that stuff is pretty weak. I think the other portions of the story are far more important to talk about.
Agreed about the second part. I think people just use mission 51 as the focal point about missing story information in general and the overall pacing of the game. The fact that there's actual evidence it existed and was cut is far easier to use as an example than a different missing segment.
I think you'll find that many of the people who fall into that category haven't changed their mind solely based on story, but based on a deeper, longer and more critical experience with the gameplay itself.
Not sure, and even then I find it hard to take some of those opinions seriously when they sound like "yeah, the game might seem great for the first 50 hours, but then it starts showing its limits". Well, you don't say.
I agree the game has many flaws, I agree some design choices are weird to say the least (blatant mistakes, to be precise).
I agree the game is needlessly long. There's absolutely no justification for the game being so damn long. I mean, yeah it takes a LONG time to grasp the various mechanics and gameplay is in almost constant evolution: by the end of chapter 1 it played like a different game compared to episode 1 - 5. But towards the end (chapter 2) a lot of missions are a chore, mostly because at that point you just want to see how the story ends.
As for most games allowing a similar degree of freedom, though, i think the gameplay is only as fun as you can make it.
Regarding the story and the trailers for MGS V and how it was marketed. Do people forgot about MGS 2 and MGS 4 trailers? In MGS 2 trailers, we were led to believe that we are going to play the entire game as Solid Snake and in a trailer for MGS 4, we saw Solid Snake putting a pistol in his mouth and we hear a gun fire sound after that (pulling the trigger). Kojima mislead his fans before MGS V, so people who claims that they are fans of MGS games should have expected this to happen in MGS V. Misleading MGS trailers are not something new.
That's an interesting way to use a 10/10. I've never heard that particular line of thinking before. It's not something I'm against, but it's not how I think of it. I don't use 10/10 as a "perfect" mark, but to label something as a "masterpiece." In that regard, I'm a bit hesitant to give MGSV that label.
Even ignoring the promotional materials, Kojima's hype on Twitter, and the cut pieces of content like Episode 51, the game still falls flat in many ways. The only thing that those extra things do is exacerbate the issues already obviously present.
It's an interesting video, basically explaining the viewpoint of a "fanboy" and all the pitfalls that come with.
On topic of the review scores I don't get the impressions he is that kind of guy that should be surprised by this at this point. With very few expactaions every big budget gets treated that way, review event or not. And it is always a bit unfair and overly reductive to single out a single sentence in a review to make a point.
I have much more problems with mgs4
